Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman noted that staff recommended expanding the definition of infrastructure to include air service. <br />She said the last Connect Oregon funding had gone to the airport. She asserted that the airport had “many <br />other sources of funding,” but the City had not been able to find funding for the depot project. She felt there <br />could be other projects that the City would want to fund. She questioned why the airport would be the <br />priority of the Public Works Department. Mr. Jones replied that it was important to think at the City level <br />what projects were likely or reasonable to move forward in order to ensure that the bill as it moved through <br />the session was written in a way that accommodated the set of projects the City would hope to be able to <br />apply for funding for. <br /> <br />Mr. Jones agreed that airport staff saw the ability to propose an airport project for funding as something <br />they would want to see, but the city staff would also like to see the bill written in such a way that the depot <br />project would qualify for such funding. He said another approach would be to see if the bill could give some <br />priority to projects that were advanced in the previous round but were not successful. He underscored that it <br />was up to the CCIGR to state the priorities for moving the bill ahead, keeping in mind that a focus on <br />projects would be the most effective way to influence legislation. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked how modal equity was defined. Mr. Jones replied that modal equity simply meant that <br />an equal percentage of funding would be allocated to each of the four modes of transportation: air, rail, <br />public highways, and marine transportation. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman indicated her willingness to support the bill with an amendment, but she wanted to stress that <br />she had a “huge problem” with utilizing funding based on projected lottery revenue. She averred that if the <br />State was going to engage in funding on the projected revenue, it should be allocated to high priority <br />projects. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to keep the bill at a Priority 2 and recommend <br />support with an amendment that would ensure the criteria would allow projects like the Eugene <br />Depot or other alternative mode projects that Eugene had in its Capital Improvement Program <br />or its multi-year financing plan to be given priority. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor asked why the CCIGR would want to restrict it at this point, given that the City had its choice of <br />what it wanted to apply or not apply for without having to change substance of the bill. <br /> <br />Mr. Jones said the bill could be amended to say that it would specify projects that were identified in capital <br />improvement plans (CIPs) or in another adopted plan. He thought that could be part of the State legislation <br />or it could be part of an internal policy. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asserted that this was not the way it would work once the legislation and the criteria delineated <br />by it was in place. She stated that it was staff’s recommendation to amend it to expand the definition of <br />infrastructure to include air service; rather the focus should be on “alternative mode projects” that were in <br />existing plans. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor reiterated his reluctance to change the criteria for the entire State based on what the City of <br />Eugene wanted. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman questioned why the CCIGR would be working on a bill to begin with unless the committee was <br />working on it for the interests of Eugene. Mr. Pryor replied that they were working on how the City of <br />Eugene interfaced with the bill, but he did not want to dictate to Portland or Medford what they could apply <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 2 <br /> Relations <br />